Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Or...we can take Mueller at his word. He has made clear, several times, that he interprets the DOJ/OLC policy on not indicting a sitting president seriously, and believes it extends to not even leveling an accusation of criminality that originates from the DOJ. His investigation cleared Trump of direct collusion with Russia (which many on the right appear to delight in), but could not clear him of accusations of obstruction of justice (which Mueller made clear when he said "could not exonerate," and many of those same voices on the right don't like THAT use of exonerate, but love to point to how "exonerated" Trump was from Russian collusion. Not exactly consistent.). Mueller provided the evidence, leaving it up to the one body that can make the decision on impeachment to make that decision based on the provided evidence.
And we can also see it as a sign of the neutrality Mueller brought to the investigation, a neutrality that Starr lacked.
And we can also see it as a sign of the neutrality Mueller brought to the investigation, a neutrality that Starr lacked.
Comment